Friday, December 30, 2016

The “Good News” of an Ideological Party

Note: We’re in the last few days of the year and there’s still time to donate to the work of The Catholic Thing. All you need to do is to click on the Donate button and choose one of the many easy ways to make your entirely tax-deductible contribution. Do it today. – Robert Royal

A distinction can be made between two kinds of political parties: pragmatic parties and ideological parties.

For most of its history the Democratic Party was a pragmatic party, not an ideological party. It was not interested in making a certain philosophy of life prevail in society. That’s what ideological parties do – for instance, the Communist Party in the old Soviet Union or the Nazi Party in Germany. They wish to transform society and culture so that a certain worldview prevails, a certain quasi-religion.

Pragmatic parties, by contrast, wish to distribute patronage to their friends, the patronage of jobs, contracts, tax breaks, and welfare benefits. They care little or nothing about ideology. To be sure, you will find ideologues and ideological elements in even the most pragmatic of pragmatic parties, just as you will find pragmatic elements in even the most ideological of ideological parties. But these ideological elements are minor elements in a pragmatic party, not major elements.

As noted, the Democratic Party throughout most of its history has been a pragmatic party; as have been its great rivals, the Republican Party and the earlier Whig Party.

But that is no longer true, and it grows less true with every passing year. The Democratic Party, I contend, is increasingly an ideological party, perhaps even predominantly an ideological party; and if it not yet predominantly ideological, it soon will be unless its current “progressive” trends are interrupted. In this regard, it resembles the Communist Party and Nazi Party.

Now I would not like to be misunderstood here. I am not suggesting that Democrats are like Nazis and Communists. Generally speaking, Democrats, even very ideological Democrats, are nice people. They are polite; they are often kind, sometimes very kind; they wouldn’t hurt a flea (notwithstanding the fact that they would cheerfully have unborn babies killed). But they are ideologues; or at least they are led by ideologues, and the rank and file follow these ideological leaders.

The great majority of Democrats, I concede, are not ideologues; it is not their intention to transform America’s traditional culture and replace it with a “new and improved” culture. But the Democratic Party is being led today by leftist ideologues who wish to do precisely that. These ideologues are the “brains” of the party, while everybody else provides the party’s “muscle.”

What do these intellectual leaders of the party believe? What is the new and improved culture they wish to persuade the American people to adopt? What is the “good news” they preach?

(1) They preach a metaphysics: There is no God, at least no God like the God of the Bible; no Supreme Being who created the universe and governs it. And if they sometimes say that they are agnostics, not atheists, their agnosticism is virtually identical with atheism; the two differ in name only.

(2) They preach a theory of knowledge: There is no knowledge other than sense-based knowledge, the kind of empirical knowledge upon which natural science is based. (They pride themselves on their respect for science even though very few of them are actual scientists or philosophers or historians of science.) Thus there is no such thing as Divine Revelation. And there is no such thing as trans-empirical intuitive knowledge – for example, intuitive knowledge of the existence of God, of the immortality of the soul, of the fundamental laws of morality.

(3) They preach a theory of morality, a morality of maximum personal liberty. We should be free to do as we like, and we should tolerate a like freedom in others. Of course certain practical limits must be placed on this freedom if we are to avoid a war of all against all: we should not be free to inflict direct and tangible harm on non-consenting others.

(4) Sexual freedom: While there are many other kinds of freedom, sexual freedom is, so to speak, the keystone of the arch. If sexual intolerance is permitted, many other kinds of intolerance will follow.

(5) Anti-Christianity: The most influential opponent of the above beliefs and values is Christianity, more especially old-fashioned Catholic and Protestant Christianity. Therefore old-fashioned Christianity must be marginalized, must be driven into a social corner where it can do little or no harm.

(6) Omnicompetent government. There is no problem, not even the problem of controlling the terrestrial climate for the next 10,000 years, that cannot be solved, at least in the long run, by the action of the U.S. federal government. Do we have problems of poverty or crime or education or health or drug addiction or global warming? There must be solution that Washington can find for it – a law, an agency, a spending program, a global treaty, etc.

With regard to ideology, Democrats can be divided into three concentric circles. The innermost circle is made up of the leftist ideologues I’ve been talking about; they are the ones who manufacture “progressive” ideas and distribute them at the wholesale level.

The next circle, a larger circle, is made up of semi-ideologues; they are consumers and retail distributors of these ideas.

The outermost circle, the largest circle of all, is made up of non-ideologues. If they accept, or at least don’t oppose, “progressive” ideas, this is not from love of these ideas but from party loyalty. In this outermost circle can be found many blacks, Latinos, labor union members, and family heritage Democrats.

The Democratic Party isn’t the only crucial place where anti-Christian ideologues and semi-ideologues have won control. They have also won control in the entertainment industry, in the news media, and in our leading colleges and universities (including law schools).

A relatively small number of smart and well-organized fanatics can re-shape a culture. It’s happened many times in the past, and it’s now happening right under our noses.

As socialism shattered Venezuela, the useful idiots applauded

WHEN THE COLD WAR ended 25 years ago, the Soviet Union vanished into the ash heap of history. That left the West's "useful idiots" — Lenin's term for the ideologues and toadies who could always be relied on to justify or praise whatever Moscow did — in search of other socialist thugs to fawn over. Many found a new heartthrob in Hugo Chavez, the anti-Yanqui rabble-rouser who was elected president of Venezuela in 1998, and in short order had transformed the country from a successful social democracy into a grim and corrupt autocracy.
An avowed Marxist and protégé of Fidel Castro, Chavez gradually seized control of every lever of state power in Venezuela. The constitution was rewritten to strip the legislature and judiciary of their independence, authorize censorship of the press, and allow Chavez to legislate by decree. Before long the government acquired a stranglehold over the economy, including the huge and profitable energy sector. (Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world.)
With petrodollars pouring in, Chavez had free rein to put his statist prescriptions into effect. The so-called "Bolivarian revolution" over which he — and later his handpicked successor, Nicolas Maduro — presided, was an unfettered, real-world example of anticapitalist socialism in action. Venezuela since at least the 1970s had been Latin America's most affluent nation. Now it was a showpiece for command-and-control economics: price and currency controls, wealth redistribution, ramped-up government spending, expropriation of farmland, and the nationalization of private banks, mines, and oil companies.
And the useful idiots ate it up.
In a Salon piece titled "Hugo Chavez's economic miracle," David Sirota declared that the Venezuelan ruler, with his "full-throated advocacy of socialism," had "racked up an economic record that . . . American president[s] could only dream of achieving." The Guardian offered "Three cheers for Chavez." Moviemaker Oliver Stone filmed a documentary gushing over "the positive changes that have happened economically in all of South America" because of Venezuela's socialist government. And when Chavez died in 2013, Jimmy Carter extolled the strongman for "improving the lives of millions of his fellow countrymen."
In the real world, however, socialism has transformed Venezuela into a Third World dystopia.
Venezuela this Christmas is sunk in misery, as it was last Christmas, and the Christmas before that. Venezuelans, their economy wrecked by statism, face crippling shortages of everything from food and medicine to toilet paper and electricity. Violent crime is out of control. Shoppers are forced to stand in lines for hours outside drugstores and supermarkets — lines that routinely lead to empty shelves, or break down in fistfights, muggings, and mob looting. Last week the government deployed 3,000 troops to restore order after frantic rioters rampaged through shops and homes in the southeastern state of Bolivar.
In the beautiful country that used to boast the highest standard of living in Latin America, patients now die in hospitals for lack of basic health-care staples: soap, gloves, oxygen, drugs. In some medical wards, there isn't even water to wash the blood from operating tables.
Between 2012 and 2015, "the rate of death among babies under a month old increased more than a hundredfold in public hospitals run by the Health Ministry", the New York Times reported in May. "The rate of death among new mothers in those hospitals increased by almost five times in the same period."

Citizens of Venezuela, once the most affluent country in Latin America, now routinely wait in extremely long lines to buy food. Government price controls, rationing, and seizure of private property have destroyed the nation's economy.

Socialism invariably kills and impoverishes. Gushing oil revenues amid a global energy boom could temporarily disguise the corrosion caused by a government takeover of market functions. But only temporarily. The Chavez/Maduro "Bolivarian revolution" has been economic poison, just like every other Marxist "revolution" from Lenin's Russia to Kim Il Sung's North Korea to the Castros' Cuba. By shredding property rights, dictating prices, and trying to control supply and demand, socialist regimes eventually make everything worse and virtually everyone poorer. Conversely, when governments protect free markets and allow buyers and sellers to interact freely, prosperity expands.
For three years in a row, Venezuela has ranked No. 1 on the Cato Institute's "misery index" which ranks each of the world's countries according to a formula that adds its unemployment, interest, and inflation rates, then subtracts its annual change in GDP per capita. With Venezuelan currency virtually worthless — hyperinflation this year is estimated at higher than 700 percent — residents have to resort to humiliating and pathetic workarounds. Reuters reported this month that Venezuelan women have been flocking across the border into Colombia and selling their hair in their desperation to earn some money with which to buy food, medicine, or diapers.
The government in Caracas, meanwhile, clings tightly to its socialist dogma, blaming the country's woes on Colombia's "mafia" or greedy businessmen. Ten days ago, government agents raided a toy distributor, confiscating nearly 4 million toys on the grounds that the company was planning to sell them at inflated prices. The regime says it will make the toys available at below-market prices to the poor — thereby ensuring that in Venezuela next Christmas, toys won't be available at any price. If nothing else, Venezuelan socialism has accomplished this much: It has transformed the Grinch from fiction into reality.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).
-- ## --

Obama’s Real Estate: The Injustice of Social Justice

If you think the left is upset about president-elect Trump’s billionaire cabinet picks just wait until they hear about President Obama’s real-estate purchases! As President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama prepare to take their last Hawaiian vacation on the government dime, many are left wondering what’s next for the charismatic couple that fundamentally transformed American culture and politics. Perhaps, the question to ask is “where next?”

Talk about out of touch! At some point the left has to decide whether “evil One Percenters” like the outgoing president are friends or foe, if the accumulation of personal wealth is good or bad, and if legitimate success, unlike wealth redistribution (a.k.a. theft) through social justice, is worthy of admiration or scorn. Not to mention, if the Apostle Paul was right when he said in 2 Thessalonians 3;10: “if a man will not work he shall not eat.” Until that occurs, how about we just ridicule these left-wing hypocrites!

Had conservatives known social justice would become such a lucrative industry for democratic elitists, perhaps some of us might have been tempted to screw the little guy, secure our own financial future, and fill our campaign coffers like the disgraced Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, and President Obama himself. But, noooo! Instead, we selfishly chose to champion capitalism! You know, the free market system that has helped more people escape poverty worldwide than any other; that relies on God-given talent, ambition, drive, hard work, competition, equal opportunity for all ethnicities, creativity and a bit of luck, otherwise known as preparation. How selfish could we be?

I wasn’t a huge fan of Donald Trump during the primary season because I believed then as I do now that he’s a Big Government Republican. Having said that, except for a few questionable cabinet picks that I’m cautiously optimistic about, namely Nikki Haley, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and Rex Tillerson of Exxon Mobil for Secretary of State, Trump’s cabinet picks have been impressive. The left disagrees. A couple of weeks ago, the NY Times wrote a hit piece on some of Trump’s cabinet appointees because they’re billionaires. It was entitled “Trump’s Economic Cabinet Picks Signal Embrace of Wall St. Elite.”

To the contrary, I believe Trump’s cabinet picks signal an embrace of success! Whether you’re speaking of Steve Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary, Betsy Devos as Secretary of Education, Wilbur L. Ross Jr. as Secretary of Commerce, Todd Ricketts as Deputy Commerce Secretary, or Vincent Viola as Secretary of the Army, these are hardworking and accomplished Americans who can teach us all a lesson on how to achieve our own dreams. These “billionaires,” that are virtually volunteering their time to serve our country will undoubtedly make an incredible contribution to our nation by rolling back burdensome regulations that have hurt America’s labor force. As job creators, they should be revered not maligned. These titans of industry employ the “forgotten man,” while leftists steal from them under the guise of “social justice.”

President Obama’s real estate purchases are a perfect example of the unjustifiable profitability of social justice warriors. While democratic elites claim to fight for “income inequality” and the “little guy,” they often enrich themselves off the backs of their constituents. Apparently living off the largesse of the government is moral but becoming rich in the private citizen sector is not. After President Obama leaves the opulence of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., he’ll have no less than four homes waiting for him. You heard me right! Wishing your college major was social justice? Here’s a look at the President’s estates:

1) According to the Daily Wire, the Obamas will move into a nine-bedroom mansion in the affluent Kalorama section of Washington after leaving the White House, complete with a gourmet kitchen and butler’s pantry while Sasha Obama finishes high school.

2) Next on the list, is a vacation home in Hawaii that is likely the famous Robin Masters Estate from the 80s hit show Magnum P.I. that starred Tom Selleck. The home was purchased for $8.7 million via a corporate concern controlled by Marty Nesbitt – a financier and golfing buddy to the president.

3) Who can forget the Obama’s 8,232- square-foot home in the gated community of Rancho Mirage, California purchased in 2014 according to the Los Angeles Times and USA Today? It’s the former home of novelist Joseph Wambaugh. The neighborhood is also where icons Frank Sinatra, Bob Hope, and Bing Crosby once lived. It’s a four bedroom, 4.5 bath home that rest atop 3.29 acres and has a main house, built in 1993, complete with a gym, a pool with a 20-foot waterfall, a rock lagoon, two spas, a misting system, a putting green with a sand trap. Also on the property there’s a guest house with three bedrooms and three bathrooms. Not too shabby for a community organizer turned president with a $400,000 annual salary!

4) Lastly, who can forget the sweetheart real-estate deal the Obama’s received from the infamous Tony Rezko for their Georgian brick mansion in Chicago, Illinois?

Imagine the number of the Obama’s former constituents they’ll have to share their homes with on a routine basis if they truly believe in “spreading the wealth around.” They’d better stock up on Febreze and toilet paper before they leave the White House to toil amongst us po’ folk because things could get messy! Of course, we all know that won’t happen.

Listen, to believe social justice is a virtue is to believe that thievery is moral, individual talent is immoral and unfair, and the ability to become wealthy through hard work is a sin. By extension, buying stuff that your neighbor can’t afford is unrighteous. That’s crazy!

The truth is social justice

doesn’t reconcile with Biblical truth. God neither favors the poor or the rich, but admonishes us all. True justice requires equality before the law, not equality of income or abilities. Deep down, I think the Obamas know that and now, so do you.

Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George Bush did not acquire any more real estate after they left the Presidency than they had before they

The Clintons and the Obamas on the other hand enriched themselves at the taxpayers expense.

It's Official: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California

Democrats who are having trouble getting out of the first stage of grief — denial — aren't being helped by the fact that, now that all the votes are counted, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote has topped 2.8 million, giving her a 48% share of the vote compared with Trumps 46%.

To those unschooled in how the United States selects presidents, this seems totally unfair. But look more closely at the numbers and you see that Clinton's advantage all but disappears.

As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.

California is the only state, in fact, where Clinton's margin of victory was bigger than President Obama's in 2012 — 61.5% vs. Obama's 60%.

But California is the exception that proves the true genius of the Electoral College — which was designed to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections.

In recent years, California has been turning into what amounts to a one-party state. Between 2008 and 2016, the number of Californian's who registered as Democrats climbed by 1.1 million, while the number of registered Republicans dropped by almost 400,000.

What's more, many Republicans in the state had nobody to vote for in November.

There were two Democrats — and zero Republicans — running to replace Sen. Barbara Boxer. There were no Republicans on the ballot for House seats in nine of California's congressional districts.

At the state level, six districts had no Republicans running for the state senate, and 16 districts had no Republicans running for state assembly seats.

Plus, since Republicans knew Clinton was going to win the state — and its entire 55 electoral votes — casting a ballot for Trump was virtually meaningless, since no matter what her margin of victory, Clinton was getting all 55 votes.

Is it any wonder then, that Trump got 11% fewer California votes than John McCain did in 2008? (Clinton got 6% more votes than Obama did eight years ago, but the number of registered Democrats in the state climbed by 13% over those years.)

If you take California out of the popular vote equation, then Trump wins the rest of the country by 1.4 million votes. And if California voted like every other Democratic state — where Clinton averaged 53.5% wins — Clinton and Trump end up in a virtual popular vote tie. (This was not the case in 2012. Obama beat Romney by 2 million votes that year, not counting California.)

Meanwhile, if you look at every other measure, Trump was the clear and decisive winner in this election.

***

Number of states won:
Trump: 30
Clinton: 20
_________________Trump: +10

Translate This Blog

Followers

Subscribe To

Search This Blog

About Me

A Texan who loves the truth and hates the lying, cheating, and deliberate prevarication that characterizes so much of our civic discourse these days.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RIPOSTE, n. 1. Fencing: a quick thrust after parrying a lunge 2. a quick sharp return in speech or action; counterstroke.
- The Random House Dictionary of the English Language...........
You can contact me by sending an email to me at: leorugiens23@gmail.com